Environmental and occupational factors affecting fertility and IVF success
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive function has been shown to be sensitive to changes in the physical, psychosocial and chemical environments. Although reproductive effects of occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals have been well documented in the literature, the potential effects of chemical contaminants at levels representative of contemporary exposures in the general population are much less certain. Evidence for adverse effects of exposure to environmental contaminants is more conclusive among the lower animals than for humans where considerable controversy remains. In addition to potential reproductive hazards of exposure to environmental contaminants, there is also evidence for adverse reproductive effects of the physical and psychosocial environments. In this review we focus on the difficulties involved in linking exposure to putative hazardous substances in environmental and occupational settings to adverse reproductive outcomes, especially success of IVF procedures. We highlight the plausibility of adverse events through animal and cell studies and the application of these results to the interpretation of human data. We consider both the male and female partners since it is essentially their combined contributions of gametes which may be affected by chemicals, which lead to successful outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it